MENAFSIRKAN KEADILAN DALAM FILSAFAT HUKUM: STUDI KOMPARATIF PEMIKIRAN IBNU RUSYD DAN JOHN LOCKE

Abstract

This study explores the existence of law and justice through a comparative analysis of two major thinkers from Eastern and Western traditions, namely Ibn Rushd and John Locke, using a qualitative approach based on literature review and philosophical-comparative analysis. Ibn Rushd views law as a means to achieve substantive justice by integrating revelation and reason, rejecting purely textual interpretations that disregard the objectives of Sharia (maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah). Meanwhile, Locke builds his legal philosophy on social contract theory and natural law, grounded in the inalienable rights of individuals—life, liberty, and property—and asserts that legitimate law must be based on the consent of the governed. The analysis shows that both thinkers employ reason as a critical tool for evaluating law and reject absolute power, although they differ in the source of legal legitimacy: Ibn Rushd combines reason with divine revelation, while Locke relies on secular rationality. These findings affirm that an integrative, rational, and contextual approach to law and justice can serve as a vital foundation for building fair and inclusive legal systems in both Islamic societies and modern democratic states.